[Le Repteux]

David, here is a drawing of mine that I usually used to show what I considered to be an SR contradiction.
hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=848798aberrationtrain3.png

Try to be patient this time, I'm still not allowed to put links, but maybe the description will be sufficient:

Are you also unable to attach image files directly? I can't find any way of making the image appear at that site.

I can't attach files either, the admin told me that I was half way from a senior status, so it will take a while. How about downloading adblock at getadblock.com ? It's free and very efficient. I disconnected from hostpics, and I still got the image instantly, so maybe you will. But you got my explanations right anyway. :0)

I have a question about your simulation David. What if you ran the software with photons traveling like massive particles? They would spend the same time in both arms this way, and without the need for time dilation and length contraction. They would not be traveling at the same speed with regard to aether, but they would with regard to the mirrors,

It doesn't work that way because the speed of the object moving along the arm aligned with the direction of travel of the apparatus would be different in different directions relative to the mirrors - when moving one way it would have more of its movement energy stored as relativistic mass instead of kinetic energy than when it's moving the other way.

Maybe mass increase, thus added resistance to acceleration due to speed, would affect clocks traveling at relativistic speeds, but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors. Moreover, since the acceleration of the ball would always be perpendicular to the motion, I think it would not suffer mass increase in this direction, so the speed of the system would not affect the speed of the ball in this direction. I suggested this mind experiment to analyze the way light would travel if it had mass, so I think we should not use time dilation or length contraction or mass increase as a way to test it, instead, we should only run it and see if it would need those phenomenon to work properly. For instance, if we give mass to light and it doesn't slow down moving light clocks, we cannot assume that relativistic effects would nevertheless affect the energy of particles, because that energy would also travel like massive particles.

As I said though, a massive light doesn't seem to explain the sagnac effect, so it might be a futile exercise, but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive, so I thought it would be useful to compare them. My atoms' steps mean that some kind of light might be at the origin of motion and mass, so photons may not carry mass the way massive ones do, but they certainly could appear to do so. On the other hand, if the way particles travel in aether depends on the information they exchange between them, then it is normal that they follow the direction given by that information, and to me, only doppler effect and aberration can help them to do so, so if a massive particle follows a straight line between two reflectors whatever the speed of the system, it should be due to doppler effect and aberration at the particles' level.

[David Cooper]

I am not disagreeing your clocks would not tick at different rates because your scenario is designed to show that and that is what would happen.
However you are quite clearly misinterpreting the information in which I do not blame you for, your education learnt you this to be so.

Do you understand that light clocks are clocks and that all clocks slow down like light clocks because even if they're clockwork things with cogs and springs they operate using forces which travel at the speed of light and have increasingly lengthened communication distances for these forces as the clocks move faster through space? There is no clock that doesn't slow like a light clock. With a mechanical watch, it's possible to build it more or less on a single plane such that length-contraction has little impact on it if it's aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel through space, but if it's aligned edge on to its direction of travel it has to be length-contracted as much as a light clock in order to keep it ticking at the same rate as the perpendicular clock. Time never slows, but clocks do, and clocks are slowed the same amount regardless of how they are aligned, which wouldn't happen without length-contraction acting on them.

The clock at relative rest measures 1 tick which is equal to 1 second

The clock in motion as not yet registered a tick.

However the light travelling in either clock as travelled an equal distance because the speed is constant of the light.

Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space, but we have a stationary clock ticking at the fastest rate that it can tick at (without jiggling it, which would be cheating), and we have two moving clocks which tick at a slower rate. The moving MMX is in effect exactly such a pair of moving clocks, and they both tick at the same rate as each other, going directly against the predictions for a universe without length-contraction where they would usually be found to tick at different rates.

All you are saying to me is that light takes longer to travel a longer distance than a shorter distance.  There is nothing else you have said in all that you said.  That is all it means so why do you think it means something else?

Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?

[guest39538]

Do you still not understand that moving clocks tick at a slower rate than identical ones which are stationary? Do you still not understand that all clocks are slowed in this way? Do you still not understand that almost everything that has any functionality to it is a clock and its functionality will be slowed down by its speed of movement through space (creating the illusion that time is slowed down while in reality it is merely functionality that is slowed)?

HUH?  I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything.

There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation ,  if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''.

What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed. 

Yes - the light has gone the same distance through space,

Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.

What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.
In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.

[David Cooper]

...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.

Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed. That's for a ball bouncing back and forth in the same direction as the apparatus is moving in. If it's moving on the perpendicular path instead, it's actual direction of travel is forwards of that at some angle, and the increase in relativistic mass from the forward component of its motion will also slow the perpendicular component of its motion. If, for example, the ball is moving at 0.5c on the perpendicular path and we then accelerate the apparatus from stationary to 0.5c, the actual speed of the ball will not be 0.707c, but a lower value which I don't currently know how to calculate - the extra mass will slow the perpendicular movement, but I don't know how much extra mass there will be because I don't know what the total speed will be, so I can't work out how much the perpendicular movement will slow, and therefore can't work out what the total speed will be. I could work it out in reverse though by working out the time the ball would have to take to reach the mirror, and that would give me the actual speed of the ball, at which point I could work out the relativistic mass it's carrying and calculate how much that extra mass would slow the perpendicular movement, and then that slowing should match up with the actual speed reduction of the perpendicular component. I'll maybe have a go at doing that later (if no one else is keen to give it a go first).

...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,

It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).

[David Cooper]

HUH?  I know time never slows down, I also know the clocks tick at different frequencies, you do not seem to be understanding anything.

There is no contraction of space, there is no contraction of the carriage, there is no contraction of the light,there is no time dilation ,  if you think there is , then you must be quite ''crazy''.

What you fail to grasp is that nothing is slowed.

The ticking of the clocks is slowed. The functionality of the clocks is slowed. You agree that the clocks tick at different frequencies, so why can't you see that that's a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

Yes the light is simultaneous in timing and in both clocks the light travels the same distance, it is your numbers that are incorrect.

You agreed with the numbers - you completed assignment 1 and your figures were 100% compatible with mine.

What you are calling 1 second of the tick in motion is actually 1.1s and your numbers are wrong timed by the clock at rest.

Assuming a speed of travel of 0.5c, what the moving clock asserts is a second is judged to be 1.1547s by the stationary clock. You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow, so it will correct for the slowing and shout "tick" before the light has completed a cycle, but clocks don't behave like that - they always shout "tick" on the completion of cycles.

In short you would not need the clock in motion because the clock at rest is the clock that is measuring time accurately.

How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

[guest39538]

You are trying to claim that the moving clock will tick slow and somehow know that it's ticking slow,

You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.

a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

In English ?  what as that even suppose to mean.

How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.

This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length and , then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it and .
If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately,   and , then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.

[Le Repteux]

...but clocks made of a ball bouncing back and forth between two reflectors would not slow down the way light clocks would, because whatever the speed of the system through aether, the ball would always take the same time between the mirrors.

Not so - the ball would be carrying more relativistic mass when going in one direction and less when going the other way, so you have to take that into account when working out its speed.

Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it. If we exchange a ball while the earth is traveling through aether, the ball always keeps the same speed with regard to us whatever our position on the earth, so it doesn't keep the same speed with regard to aether, and light does. One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.

...but the way massless light moves through aether in your laser is nevertheless the same as if it would be massive,

It isn't the same. The speed of light through the space fabric is always c, but as soon as you have mass tied up in something, its speed through the space fabric can vary, which is why a particle orbiting a black hole at 0.866c while the black hole is moving along at 0.866c will vary in speed between 0 and 0.99c through the fabric of space, whereas light going round in a circle at the event horizon of a black hole will move at c through the fabric of space throughout (ignoring the slowing caused by its depth in the gravity well).

What I meant is that a massive particle sent perpendicularly to the direction of the moving laser would hit the mirrors, and that a photon sent at an angle to the same direction by an atom of the laser would hit them too. In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light, and if we didn't see the particle, we could imagine that it is traveling through aether at high speed.

I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future? 

[David Cooper]

Mass only affects resistance to acceleration, so when the ball would be bouncing forward, it would take more energy to accelerate it, but since the reflector would be more massive too, I think it should have the same speed with regard to the reflector than the one it had before hitting it.

If you start with a ball bouncing back and forth between two mirrors/walls on a path perpendicular to the direction the apparatus is going to move in, when you start moving the apparatus, the ball will be left behind, so we have to get the apparatus moving first and then set the ball moving afterwards. If we do that, how hard are we going to push the ball? If the apparatus is moving at 0.866c, for example, all our actions will be running at half speed just as our clocks are slowed, so we push the ball at a speed we think is the same one we gave it when the apparatus was at rest, but we're actually only pushing it up to half that speed. That means the perpendicular component of its speed will be half of what we believe it to be and it will take twice as long to complete the trip. That gives us a different way to work out the speed than the way I outlined last time - you simply multiply the perpendicular component of its speed in a stationary apparatus by the time-dilation factor applying to a moving apparatus).

One thing is sure, it actually takes the same time for a ball to travel forward than backward between two reflectors on earth whatever its speed through aether, and it shouldn't be so for light.

One thing is sure, and that's that your sure thing isn't the case.

In fact, if we could see the photon, we would see it getting away from the laser at lower speed than the speed of light...

Relative to the laser, yes.

I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?

The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.

[David Cooper]

You are close to understanding, the clock does not know it is ticking slowly , but we know it is ticking slower. We also know the reason it is ticking slowly, because the light is travelling a greater distance.

We would know that if we could tell that we were stationary, but it's more awkward than that. We're on a planet that's moving round a star that's moving round in a galaxy that's moving through the universe. We can't identify a stationary frame of reference, so we don't have a clock that we know to be stationary which all other clocks could be compared with.

a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

In English ?  what as that even suppose to mean.

It means exactly what it says. A clock is a device that counts cycles, and to have cycles it needs to have moving parts. In a light clock, the moving parts are light pulses. In a mechanical watch, the moving parts are things like cogs and springs. If the functionality is slowed, it means the cycles take longer to complete. A clockwork car will also move more slowly if its functionality is slowed, so it too behaves like a clock. A person will also walk more slowly and think more slowly when moving because his/her functionality is also slowed.

How do you know which of the clocks is really in motion?

Because we are discussing relative motion and not absolute motion.

We're discussing both, but one of them depends on knowledge that we have no access to.

This is what you are doing, you are taking a constant length and , then for no reason changing the constant length but still keeping it and .
If you actually did it without the ''parlour trick'' and put the new constant lengths appropriately,   and , then having the parameters correct, there is no problem or contraction, just explanation that light takes different amount of times to travel different lengths. Which is very simple and obvious.

What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').

[guest39538]

What makes you think I'm using ab and ba for the moving system? If I was starting with the leftward journey of the photon on a light clock which is moving to the right, the first measurement wouldn't be ca, but ba', and the second measurement wouldn't be ad, but a'b''' (the number of dashes after that last b not being an exact value and varying depending on the speed involved - all I'm trying to indicate with this is that aa' is a shorter distance than half bb''').

I think you are using because that is the obvious system to use, and admit tingly by yourself you are making this error.
You are changing the (a) constant and (b) constant so the results you get are expected and there is nothing odd about it.

As yet you have still not shown any contraction, in fact you have not shown really anything that actually means anything of importance. You have shown light takes more time to travel more distance and less time to travel less distance, then you want to try and make more out of it, although there is nothing more to it.


Now if you want to say there is a distance contraction of the space the light has to travel or an expansion of the distance of space the light has to travel, that would be acceptable fact.
The carriage itself does not contract, the space itself does not contract, the light does not contract, the distance changes and that is all there is too it.

a moving clock's functionality being slowed?

Yes, a moving clocks functionality is being slowed, but the problem is it means absolutely nothing apart from your clock is not a constant and can not measure constant time accurately.

Time passes by at an infinite speed , it is not measurable  accurately.

t=←∞

You can realise this if you try to move away from 0.  Please try to move ''forward'' at any speed without leaving an immediate past.

0→

[guest39538]

Realise this, while you are focusing on the events unfolding inside the carriage , outside the carriage the light is always being synchronous through a distance of space.


train.jpg (45.75 kB . 1274x584 - viewed 1940 times)

[guest39538]

Then when you finally get this straight in your mind and removed your confusion, we can go onto some real science and discuss volume expansion and contraction by the affects of thermodynamics and motion.

I assure you if you travelled to the sun, your molecules will expand isotropic.  I assure you when it is cold you shrink.

[guest39538]

An object in relative  motion will isotropic contract because it loses the time share entropy scheme of a rest body if at relative rest.
I am talking real physical contractions here, not myths.

[David Cooper]

Box,

You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.

Perhaps it will help to add a fourth clock so that we have two stationary clocks aligned perpendicular to each other. Those two clocks tick at the same rate as each other.

Now look at the other pair of clocks that are moving - they are not ticking at the same rate as each other because their movement through space slows the ticking on one of them more than the other.

If we bring our moving pair of clocks to a halt so that they are stationary too, they will then tick at the same rate as each other. We should be able to use a pair of clocks like this to detect our movement through space, and that's what the MMX was intended to do, but it produced a null result even though it was guaranteed to be moving at high speed through space during some part of its orbit round the sun. That is the big problem for you, because the MMX would not produce a null result all the time if you were right - it might do so at one part of the Earth's orbit if the Earth happens to be stationary at that point, but six months later it will be moving at 60km/s.

[Le Repteux]

I have a question about something you say at Magic Schoolbook. You first show how clocks would slow down, then you tell us that it is not time that would be slowing down, just clocks, but later, you explain how "the rocket would record two years while the Earth would record four". Do you mean that the twin in the ship would not be younger than the twin on earth, and if so, isn't it what you describe as an impossible shortcut into the future?

The rocket has clocks which all record two years' worth of ticks, and the Earth has clocks which all record four years' worth of ticks in the same length of time. The twin in the rocket has been around for just as long as the twin on the Earth, but has spent four years running in slow motion and has aged two years less due to slowed functionality; all of that slowing being caused by doubled communication distances between atoms/etc. and within atoms. The idea of shortcuts into the future doesn't actually add up in any Spacetime model, either because it introduces contradictions or because it still needs a Newtonian time to be added to the model if it is to function rationally, at which point the shortcuts are seen as fake, merely being things running in slow motion against Newtonian time while covering a reduced distance through a superfluous time dimension.

Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»? If you mean that clocks would not slow down for all observers at rest in aether, maybe you should say it this way, because since I did not believe that time could really slow down, I understood that time would not really slow down even for clocks in motion. I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether. We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do? You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so? With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock, or two moving atoms exchanging energy, would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.

[David Cooper]

Then why do you say that «Clocks are slowed by movement, but more importantly, Lorentz Ether Theory says that actual time is not slowed at all»?

Because some people get the idea into their heads that time is slowing down for a moving object, but all that's actually slowing for them is their functionality due to increased communication distances for things like light and forces. Time continues to pass at the same rate as for a stationary object. The problem is that many people have difficulty understanding what time is, and Einstein messed badly with their minds. I want to untangle the mess for them by showing them that time relates to how fast light moves through the space fabric and that it passes at the same rate for stationary objects as for moving ones, not always matching up to the amount of time that a clock measures as passing. With SR where there is no absolute frame of reference, a clock will supposedly always tick at the rate that time is passing and not at a slower rate, and the claim is that the speed of light across the clock is always the same in all directions.

I still have a doubt though, because I can't figure out how a light clock could register less tics while moving through aether.

But you've seen in the interactive MMX diagrams that the stationary apparatus completes a "tick" in half the time taken for the one moving at 0.866c, so how can moving clocks fail to count up fewer ticks? The only problem we have is that we can't pin down which clocks are stationary because every clock appears to behave in such a way that it could be stationary with all clocks moving relative to it appearing to be the ones that are running slow. No clock can detect that it is running slow, and there's no observer in the universe who can point to a clock that he can prove is not running slow.

We can attribute the time dilation phenomenon to the atoms, but if a light clock can't measure it, how could the atoms do?

They can't measure it - nothing in the universe can.

You said that the walls of your moving box would get the same quantity of energy, so how would the atoms be able to measure a difference at their scale? We can't measure the speed of light one way, so how would the atoms be able to do so?

Why do you think the atoms would need to do so? They don't do anything different from light clocks and there is no way for them to detect whether they're moving or not.

With no difference in the speed of the information to measure, no difference in the frequency of light, and no difference in its intensity, it seems to me that a moving light clock or two moving atoms exchanging energy would have nothing more to register than if they were at rest.

Indeed - the exchange seems identical to them, but it isn't and it happens more slowly.

[guest39538]

Box,

You appear, at times, to agree that there are three different tick rates for the clocks: the stationary clock ticks more quickly than the two moving ones, and the perpendicular moving clock ticks more quickly than the non-perpendicular one. You agreed with the numbers for this when you completed assignment 1.

Yes I have agreed your clocks tick at different speeds but you seem to miss the point that this does not mean anything other than it takes light  more time to travel more distance or less time to travel less distance.  Why do you keep insisting it means something else?

[GoC (OP)]

Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.
Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations.
Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct.
Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.
We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.
This follows the equivalence principle.

In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.

[guest39538]

A quick break down of thread so far for those who do not understand.   Science is arguing that a train carriage shrinks in length when in motion. (contracts),

I am arguing that the length constant of the train carriage remains constant in any position of travel. Science claims this contraction but has no explanation or physical example of a contraction, they are making it up.

What they do explain is a contraction and expansion of the length of space between .  However this is not a physical contraction of the space itself or the light or the carriage.   it is a distance decrease and increase, no more , no less.


added- This is what we are discussing

[guest39538]

Because the measurement of time would be meaningless if orientation mattered for tick rate.
Observations suggest tick rate is the same in all orientations.
Math has to follow a theory to be correct but a theory that follows math does not have to be correct.
Either the physical clock has to contract or space has to lengthen to fit the math to the observation.
We do have an observation that space Aether lengthens in the wavelength produced with increased velocity.
This follows the equivalence principle.

In GR Aether space energy has to expand to allow Black holes to form. Energy keeps atoms apart until the expansion become greater than the speed of light as gravity. We might have the same issue equivalence with Doppler affect on space expansion. If light has to travel further for the same distance the effect would be the same as physical contraction while still following relativity.

Tick rate is the same with no direction.  Any measurement after 0 becomes immediate history even standing ''still''.

The speed of time is   ←∞ for all observers.  Our brain information update of observation is updated immediately by travelling information packets. There is no space between receiving information packets that enters your eyes. The live feed is continuous and without breaks or pauses.